BALRAJ SINGH Vs. BALKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question under section 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) is raised in this petition under section 482 of the Code. The question is, whether an order of cancellation of the maintenance allowance can be made to take effect from the date of the application for cancellation or instead from the date of the order?

(2.) The material facts of the case are within a short compass and may be briefly set out. Balkar Singh respondent is the son of Balraj Singh petitioner. He was allowed maintenance allowance under section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in the year 1961. The amount of maintenance was enhanced to Rs. 100/- subsequently with effect from 14.11.1969 vide order dated 10.2.1977. The revision petition filed by Balraj Singh petitioner was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bamala, on 16.12.1977. The petitioner then filed an application under section 127 of the Code seeking cancellation of the maintenance order in favour of the respondent on the ground that the latter had become major. That application was however, allowed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bamala, on 22.12.1981 and it was directed that the order of maintenance shall stand cancelled only with effect from the date of the application. The revision petition against that order was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, on 26.7.1982, agreeing with the view taken by the Magistrate. By means of the present petition, the orders of the two Courts below are sought to be quashed by invoking the provisions of section 482 of the Code.

(3.) Mr. CR. Majithia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the observations of the Courts below that the order of maintenance cannot be cancelled retrospectively is contrary to the mandatory provisions of section 127 of the Code. To buttress his contention, reliance has been placed on a decision in Dhani Ram v. Parwati and another1. It is needless to refer to the facts of that case because the ratio thereof is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.